Amy Chua is
a Yale University Professor of Law. Her most recent
book is readable and fascinating. As well, its underpinnings
conveniently serve as a potent illustration of the "broadly inclusive" tenets in
Open Mystic. Here's a
one
hour MP3 you can download from the World Affairs Council on whose behalf she
spoke November 15, 2007. This will whet your appetite to buy the book but
also provides background for our brief discussion here.

While Open Mystic essays propose a personal life approach
of broadest possible inclusion, "Day of Empire" shows with numerous
historical examples up to the present, that the most successful powers of a day
drew their strength from inclusion and tolerance. In other words, the book
provides macro world examples which may have an analog in the micro
world of the individual. That resonant coherence is attractive and
elegant for our purposes. We are always on the lookout for instructive,
demonstrative analogies. In other words, it makes sense to look at larger
examples and then scale the principles to one's personal life. In the
extreme example, Open Mystic repeatedly proposes an infinite meta-form (often
labeled "God") that is infinitely inclusive and everywhere present.
If/Given that's the case, then a logical - and spiritual - life strategy is
simply to imitate "God" and struggle to become as broadly inclusive as humanly
possible at a single person level, i.e., the Renaissance person model.

The essential issue in both these macro and micro
worlds is that fragmentation must be avoided. In the macro world
"empire" examples, every one present must buy into the diversity notion and
participate thusly and fully. At the individual micro level, newly
acquired knowledge and skills must be integrated with the existing knowledge
sets, principally by looking for underlying pattern commonalities. Specifically,
these questions should be asked in all cases: "How does the new knowledge relate
to my existing knowledge?" "What are the common elements?". A search
for commonality transforms mere learning into a spiritual exercise.

The significant difference between the macro - large
society - and micro - intrapersonal - levels above is that the
pluralistic society depends on each individual pursuing their own
self-interests. The diversity theoretically comes with large population
numbers. The micro application of the principle of maximal inclusion
demands that a person actively integrate all diverse knowledge and skills within
themselves. The term for this is commonly "Renaissance person" or
polymath. In
the Open Mystic rubric, this is an ideal cognitive model.

There are many issues at all levels. At the individual
level and as well the macro world politic level, there may be practical limits to
diversity, tolerance, and inclusion. At the personal level, the limit is
sanity - managing a broad range of knowledge and ideas. The human mind is
set up naturally to exclude "data inputs" in order to remain stable, and Open Mystic proposes that this trait should be fought off by those on an
autodidactic spiritual search. And really, local cultural and religious
mores never promote such personal broadness. In modern Western societies, that's
likely because it may not be easy to monetize. Also, increasingly complex
societies depend heavily on specialists, and that is also a conflict.

Unfortunately, it has been sad to conclude in this light that
tribally based traditional societies may be naturally doomed. American
Indians with their tribal divisions didn't stand a chance against the onslaught
of a more unified culture as it happened, often with a heart rending violence.
I am not an expert in the field, and the point is extremely arguable, but
societies that are spiritually and socially exclusionary may not ever be able to
compete with cultures and societies that are more unified, coherent, and
diverse. The dominant Euro-American culture has numerous flaws and blind
spots, but the politically incorrect notion has come to mind as a point of
exploration.